C VELAYUDHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition was referred to a Division Bench in view of the important questions of law involved in this case. The petitioner claimed himself to be a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. His caste status was disputed and the matter was considered by a Scrutiny Committee and the Committee passed Ext. P10 proceedings determining the caste status of the petitioner. Ext. P10 is challenged in this Original Petition. According to the petitioner, this Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government consisted only two members, whereas there should have been three members in the committee. Petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Committee on merits. We do not propose to go into the merits of the case.

(2.) The Government of Kerala, as per Ext. P7 order, constituted a Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste status of persons in doubtful cases. This Committee was constituted based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner ( 1994 (6) SCC 241 ). A detailed procedure has been enunciated by the Supreme Court as to the manner in which the caste status of a person should be decided in a doubtful case. In Clause.4 in Paragraph.13 of the judgment, the composition of the Committee is mentioned. Clause.4 reads as follows:

(3.) In the case of the petitioner, Director of the KIRTADS had submitted an earlier report regarding the caste status. Naturally, he cannot be a member of the Committee. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the matter was heard by the Committee on 23rd March, 1996 there were only two members of the Committee and, therefore, the Committee was not constituted in accordance with the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Madhuri. Patil's case (1994 (6) SCC 241) (cited supra) and therefore, it was defective and it lacked jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Learned Government Pleader, however, contends that the Secretary to Government in charge of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department was the Chairman of the Committee and the Director of Scheduled Caste Development Department was the member of the Committee and he was also holding the charge of Director of Scheduled Tribes Development Department and it is urged that the member of the Committee had been acting in dual capacity i.e., Director of Scheduled Caste Development Department as well as the Director of Scheduled Tribes Development Department and hence, the Committee was properly constituted. We are unable to accept this contention. The direction contained in the Supreme Court judgment is to the effect that there shall be three members in the Committee. The Committee has been given very important powers and duties to determine the caste status of the persons. The decision of the Committee having serious consequences with regard to the rights of the person whose caste status is decided and in such circumstances, the Committee shall have the composition as directed by the Supreme Court.